WEF Energy architecture_performance_index_2017

Industry Agenda
Global Energy
Architecture
Performance Index
Report 2017

World Economic Forum
91-93 route de la Capite
CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)22 869 1212
Fax: +41 (0)22 786 2744
Email: contact@weforum.org
www.weforum.org
World Economic Forum®
© 2017 – All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, including
photocopying and recording, or by any information
storage and retrieval system.
REF 161216
Prepared in collaboration with Accenture

3Global Energy Architecture Performance Index Report 2017
Contents
4 Acknowledgements
4 Foreword
6 Executive summary
8 Methodology
9 EAPI 2017 results
10 Key findings
15 Steering energy systems through
transition
23 Concluding remarks
24 Appendices
24 Addendum on methodology
26 Weights, measures and
abbreviations
27 Endnotes
28 References

4 Global Energy Architecture Performance Index Report 2017
Acknowledgements
Contributors
The World Economic Forum is pleased to acknowledge and
thank the individuals and partners listed here, without whom
the Global Energy Architecture Performance Index Report
2017 would not have been possible.
Chief Expert Advisers
Morgan Bazilian, Lead Energy Specialist, World Bank
Davide Puglielli, Senior Manager, Strategy and Mergers and
Acquisitions, Enel
David Victor, Professor of International Relations and
Director, Laboratory on International Law, University of
California, San Diego; Chair, Global Agenda Council on
Governance for Sustainability
Eirik Wærness, Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist,
Statoil
Data Partners
International Energy Agency (IEA), German Federal
Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ), World Bank
Group (WBG), World Trade Organization (WTO), UN SE4ALL,
UN Statistics Division and UNCTADstat
This report marks the fifth annual edition of the global Energy
Architecture Performance Index (EAPI), which examines the
progress of the global energy transition – that of moving
towards more sustainable, affordable and secure energy
systems – by benchmarking the energy systems of 127
countries.
During the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2012 in
Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, executives of the world’s largest
energy companies, policy-makers and thought leaders from
across the energy value chain were asked: To what extent do
you expect global energy systems to change over the next ten
years? An overwhelming 90% expressed the belief that
significant change would occur across energy architectures
around the world, and nearly one-third predicted a radical
shift in the way energy is sourced, transformed and
consumed.
Five years on and at the midway point, the world has indeed
witnessed unprecedented structural changes in the global
energy system, as evidenced across the three sides of the
“energy triangle”:
Economic growth and development: World energy
consumption has continued to grow since 2012, albeit at a
slower rate than seen in the previous decade. Much of this
growth has been driven by developing countries, whose
development is founded on energy. The economics of
producing this energy have experienced significant change.
The average price of oil in 2016 was 60% lower than five years
ago.1
The emergence of unconventional oil, rising energy
efficiency and slowing growth in emerging markets
contributed to a sustained supply glut and a downtrend in
prices starting at the end of 2014. In response, planned global
upstream capital spending was cut by over 30%,2
with some
predicting a potential hydrocarbon shortage as a result. By
2015, the basket of the world’s top 20 oil and gas companies
had lost a third of their market value (1)(2). Contrastingly, 10 of
the world’s biggest utility companies have seen their
combined market capitalization increase by over 26%.3
Foreword
Muqsit Ashraf
Managing Director,
Accenture Strategy - Energy
Roberto Bocca
Head of Energy and Basic
Industries and Member of
the Executive Committee,
Project Adviser: Accenture Strategy - Energy
Muqsit Ashraf, Managing Director
James Collins, Managing Director
Michael Moore, Senior Manager
Tessa Lennartz-Walker, Manager
Richard Standring, Consultant, (Lead Author)
Additional acknowledgements: Christian von Celsing,
Chhavi Maggu, Jenna Trescott
Roberto Bocca, Head of Energy and Basic Industries,
Member of the Executive Committee
Espen Mehlum, Head of Knowledge Management and
Integration, Energy Industries (Project Lead)
Thierry Geiger, Head of Analytics and Quantitative Research,
Global Competitiveness and Risks
Additional acknowledgements: Roderick Weller

Environmental sustainability: Global power markets are
transforming in favour of sustainable infrastructure. The share
of solar in world power generation has almost doubled every
two years since 2000, and every four years for wind. With
each doubling, the cost of solar falls 24% and that of wind,
19% (3). These trends suggest a permanent shift in the energy
mix of the future, marked by a decline in coal consumption,
the rising importance of natural gas and renewables, and
improved energy productivity in major economies, such as
China and the United States. Growing electrification of the
world’s secondary energy supply, and the digitization of the
grid, are indicative of a shift in energy systems and their
sustainability. Nowhere is electrification more prominent than
in the growing market for electric vehicles; pre-orders for
Tesla’s new model in 2015 broke the record for the single
biggest one-week product launch in history (4).
In November 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change
came into force – a landmark moment for the international
community committed to collectively accelerating the
transition to a clean-energy economy. The adoption of the
United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
and the Sustainable Development Goals also signalled
renewed emphasis on the need for affordable, clean energy.
Energy access and security: Many countries have set forth
ambitious plans for their new energy architectures, aiming to
take advantage of technological developments and diversify
the composition of their supplies to meet rising energy needs
and increase security. Countries have increasingly looked to
drive security through exploiting indigenous renewable and
fossil fuel energy sources. The United States’ shale boom has
placed the country in a position where it is expected to
become a net exporter of gas this decade, having lifted its
40-year ban on crude oil exports in 2016. Liquefied natural
gas (LNG) has gained share in the world energy market,
coinciding with regional shifts in trade and historical importers
becoming exporters, and vice versa. The emergence of a
more flexible global market is further signalled by almost a
third of LNG now trading on the spot market, as compared to
almost exclusively on fixed-term contracts in the past. The
oversupplied market has placed more power into buyers’
hands, with significant impact on countries’ supply mixes,
diversification strategies and trading relationships. For
instance, alongside rising domestic energy demand and
threatened export revenues, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest
oil producer, has set diversification goals in its 2030 Vision.
Below the surface of the momentous shifts of the past five
years, the energy system has started to turn, much akin to a
colossal tanker pointing in a new direction but still very far
from its destination. Although many countries have made
important leaps forward, average performance of countries
on the index has been generally sluggish, increasing by less
than two basis points over the last five years. The EAPI reveals
that countries continue to face residual challenges as they
look to make progress on their energy systems, complicated
by unforeseeable factors and market instability. Overall global
economic recovery has been slow, the Fukushima Daiichi
power plant disaster rattled public opinion and stalled
prospects for nuclear energy, and low oil prices have slashed
investment. Moreover, energy supply spending is at its lowest
level since 2010 (5).
The composition of the world’s energy consumption changed
very little from 2010 to 2014. A 1.4% increase in renewables
(including hydropower and biofuels) over this period contrasts
with slight decreases in liquid fuels and natural gas, while coal
consumption increased by 0.2% (6). The rise of renewables in
the electricity sector has been more pronounced, as they
overtook coal as the world’s largest source of power capacity,
although not generation, in 2016 (7). Access to electricity
remains a major challenge; over 17% of the world’s population
still has no access, and many more suffer from poor quality of
supply (8). While global investment in renewable energy has
risen, investment in developed countries has declined since
peaking in 2011 (9). Much work remains to meet the ambitious
targets ratified in the Paris Agreement following the United
Nations 21st annual Conference of the Parties (COP21). In
March 2016, and for the first time since records were kept,
global levels of carbon dioxide were sustained above 400
parts per million for one month (10).
Looking ahead to the next five years, and with many
conflicting scenarios around the demand for energy, the
transition to a more sustainable, affordable, secure and
inclusive energy system has taken on a pronounced urgency
and immediacy. The digitization of the economy and the
energy system will be a boon for energy-sector actors to
leverage in order to drive the transition, although it will also
lead to new complexities requiring management, not least
from a security perspective. Managing the transition to a new
energy architecture is not easy. The imperatives of the energy
triangle may reinforce or act in tension with each other, forcing
difficult trade-offs to be made. As nations contemplate how to
respond to changing energy dynamics and implement global
commitments, this year’s report highlights the lessons learned
from top performers on the EAPI and presents a guide for
steering energy systems through transition.
Ambition of the Global Energy Architecture
Performance Index
The EAPI, developed by the World Economic Forum in
collaboration with Accenture, looks at trends and the real
performance of countries’ energy systems. Since its launch
five years ago, the EAPI has contributed to the global
benchmarking of energy systems, highlighting topical energy
issues and providing guidance on making energy transitions
more effective. This year’s report includes the findings from
benchmarking 127 countries on 18 indicators covering
contribution to economic growth and development,
environmental sustainability, and energy access and security.
Like any index, the EAPI cannot fully reflect the complexity of
energy systems or of managing energy transitions. It can,
however, serve to benchmark the performance of national
energy systems, providing a basis for comparison across
nations. The EAPI offers the latest available global energy
data, aiding policy formation by providing a reliable indicator of
strengths and target areas for improvement.

Executive summary
The results of the global Energy Architecture Performance
Index (EAPI) 2017 highlight key trends in the energy transition
moving towards more sustainable, affordable and secure
energy systems around the world, as well as the challenges
countries continue to face, individually and as cohorts.
Looking back at five years of data from the EAPI, this report
also distils insights from countries that have shown
significant improvements in performance or remained
consistently high performers.
EAPI 2017: Key insights
– Top performers come in all shapes and sizes: While
many of this year’s top performers tend to be smaller
countries, both in size of gross domestic product and
population, and typically have advanced economies, a
significant number of countries do not fit this mould.
These exceptions demonstrate that few constraints are
limiting high performance. In fact, top performers come
in all shapes and sizes. Their many variations underscore
the potential for any country to make improvements in
providing secure, affordable and sustainable energy to its
population, regardless of its context.
– European countries dominate the leader board: As in
previous years, countries from Europe continue to hold
many of the top 20 ranks on the EAPI, with the
exceptions of Colombia (8th), New Zealand (9th),
Uruguay (10th) and Costa Rica (14th). This strong
performance is underpinned by advantages gained
through a long history of coordination between European
nations, which is a model for regional cooperation. These
countries score particularly high on using market forces
(reflected in low levels of price distortion) and on the
diversity of their energy mix. However, many of them
have significant room for improvement, especially in
continuing to ensure security of supply given the low level
of resource endowment across the continent.
– The world’s biggest energy consumers are being
outperformed: Major energy consumers continue to
struggle to take leading positions on the EAPI. While
showing strengths in certain areas, and early signs of
strong trajectories in others, China (95th), India (87th),
Japan (45th), the Russian Federation (48th) and the
United States (52nd) have either slipped in the rankings
since the EAPI 2009 benchmark or experienced only
marginal gains. Their energy consumption dwarfs that of
the highest-performing top 20. Big consumers need to
intensify their efforts and overcome the inherent
challenges of their large, complex energy systems; doing
so will allow them to make a disproportionately positive
impact on global energy architecture. With the world’s
energy markets underpinned by the global economy’s
performance, the global energy sector will continue to be
challenged for as long as these countries – some of the
largest economies in the world – have difficulty
exceeding average performance.
– Top-ranked countries and the rest of the table
exhibit a growing divide in performance: Since last
year, the top 20 highest-performing countries have
achieved twice the average increase in EAPI score
compared to that of all other countries. This difference in
improving performance reflects a further strengthening of
energy sectors in countries already performing well, and
an opportunity for other countries to understand these
journeys more closely – ultimately so that they can
interpret these in the context of their own transitions.
The global energy system is often perceived as slow to
change, which is reflected by the modest improvement of
less than two basis points in average score versus the EAPI
2009 benchmark. However, a number of countries have
made significant improvements in this time frame and
climbed the ranks, challenging the view of collective inertia.
Examining the journeys of Uruguay, Mexico and Jamaica,
which have made strides in their energy sector performance
since 2009, and those of Sweden and France, both of whom
have been consistently high performers, revealed three
principles of energy-sector governance to effectively steer
energy systems through transition:
– Frame the long-term direction for the energy sector,
and commit to it: Change takes a long time to enact in
energy systems. Today’s energy landscape looks very
different compared to a decade ago, and will likely be
significantly different in another 10 years’ time.

Governments that steer their energy systems through
these changes with long-term visions provide important
continuity across these extended time frames. A long-
term frame provides a vision for the energy sector’s many
stakeholders to embrace and sets the boundary
conditions for the transition. Long-term visions must be
flexible to adapt to changing energy-sector realities, new
emerging technologies and unforeseeable hindrances.
– Enable the energy transition with adaptable, co-
designed policies: The policies most effective at
advancing a country’s energy transition are those
enabling solutions that best suit a country’s context. This
means creating the necessary opportunities for
innovation to flourish, and providing flexibility for the most
appropriate technologies to emerge organically. While
governments formulate the policies, other stakeholders
are ultimately relied on to implement the changes and
achieve the goals set. For effective implementation, good
policy design involves the implementing institutions and
end-users to rigorously test policies and assess their
potential to drive the desired impact. Through this
process and before implementation, an important sense
of joint ownership is defined between formulators and
executors, instilling among all parties a clear
understanding of the policy’s intent.
– Steward investment to the most impactful areas:
Significant investment is required to make progress on
the energy transition and to meet growing demand for
energy. The International Energy Agency estimates that
$48 trillion in investment is needed globally to meet
energy needs to 2035 (11). The stability of committing to
a long-term vision is a must for establishing investor
confidence. Once promoted, private-sector investment
requires stewardship to guarantee it is focused on the
right areas. Innovative approaches are required to ensure
this is done to maintain an attractive investment
environment. In addition, choosing the right public-
private partnership model is key to promoting investment
while protecting national interests.
Now more than ever, decision-makers must understand the
core objectives of energy architecture – generating economic
growth and development in an environmentally sustainable
way while providing access to energy and energy security for
all – and how changing dynamics affect them. Steering
energy systems to a future state that is more affordable,
sustainable and secure is a long-term endeavour with
significant challenges for any country. However, that
endeavour is worthwhile because the benefits of success are
great. Energy is a prerequisite for all sectors of an economy,
and reliable energy promotes economic and social
development by boosting productivity and facilitating income
generation. So it follows that energy availability should affect
job availability, national productivity and the overall quality
of life.

Methodology
Background
Since 2013, the EAPI has provided a tool for decision-
makers to help better understand energy systems and to
assess the current energy architecture performance of
individual nations.
Methodology
The EAPI is a composite index that focuses on tracking
specific indicators to measure the energy system
performance of 127 countries. At its core are 18 indicators
defined across the three sides of the “energy triangle”, which
are: economic growth and development, environmental
sustainability, and energy access and security (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The energy architecture performance index and its indicators
Scores (on a scale of 0 to 1) and associated rankings are
calculated for each of these indicators. These are then
aggregated based on defined weights to calculate a score
and ranking for each sub-index and for the EAPI overall. A
methodological addendum on the EAPI can be found in the
appendices on page 24, and the full methodology is available
online at http://wef.ch/eapimethodology.
Economic growth and development
This sub-index measures the extent to which
a country’s energy architecture adds
or detracts from economic growth
This sub-index measures the environmental
impact of energy supply and consumption
Environmental sustainability
This sub-index measures the extent
to which an energy supply is secure,
accessible and diversified
Energy access and security
f
ation
ssions
ct
f
ation
ssions
ct
Fuel exports
(% GDP)
Super gasoline
-
level of price
distortion through
subsidy or tax
levelofprice
distortionthrough
subsidyortax
Fuel imports
(% GDP)
per unit of
GDP produced
energy use
Supports/detractsfromgrowth
Intensity
Affordability
Diesel-
forindustryElectricityprices
Alternative and
nuclear energy
N2
O emissions
in energy sector/
total population
CO2
emissions
from electricity
production
CH 4
em
issions
from
energy
sector/
total population
emissions
PM2.5
Averagefueleconomyforpassengercars
Ratiooflow
carbonfuels
intheenergymix
E
m
issionsimpact
Diversification
of im
port
Qualityof
electricitysupply
rate
Electrification
Populationusing
solidfuelsfor
cooking
Energyimports
(%
ofenergy
use)
Diversityoftotalprimaryenergysupply
counterparts
Se
lf-sufficiency
Diversityof supply
Level and quality
of
access
Energy
Architecture
Performance
Index
Source: World Economic Forum and Accenture analysis

EAPI 2017 results
Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
France
Austria
Spain
Colombia
New Zealand
Uruguay
Portugal
Finland
Slovenia
Costa Rica
United Kingdom
Ireland
Latvia
Croatia
Germany
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Paraguay
Luxembourg
Romania
Albania
Iceland
Peru
Argentina
Italy
Brazil
Czech Republic
Canada
Netherlands
Belgium
Lithuania
Azerbaijan
Poland
Greece
Singapore
Chile
Turkey
Bulgaria
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
Japan
Tajikistan
Panama
Russian Federation
El Salvador
Indonesia
Israel
United States
Australia
Congo, Rep.
Georgia
Estonia
Morocco
Armenia
Sri Lanka
Philippines
Cuba
Kazakhstan
Dominican Republic
Thailand
Tunisia
Namibia
Cyprus
Ecuador
Guatemala
Serbia
Malta
Nicaragua
Ghana
Macedonia, FYR
South Africa
Vietnam
Bolivia
Republic of Moldova
Cameroon
Algeria
Kenya
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Uzbekistan
Malaysia
India
Zambia
Belarus
Egypt, Arab Rep.
Botswana
Jamaica
Sudan
Kyrgyz Republic
China
Brunei Darussalam
Venezuela
Mozambique
Cambodia
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Cote d’Ivoire
Senegal
Bangladesh
Libya
Iraq
United Arab Emirates
Jordan
Trinidad and Tobago
Nigeria
Togo
Mongolia
Nepal
Ethiopia
Kuwait
Qatar
Turkmenistan
Haiti
Tanzania
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Saudi Arabia
Oman
Eritrea
Benin
Lebanon
Yemen, Rep.
Bahrain
(+1)
(-1)
(+1)
(+2)
(+4)
(+2)
(+3)
(+15)
(+2)
(-6)
(=)
(=)
(+12)
(+8)
(+2)
(+14)
(+15)
(+10)
(-10)
(-9)
(+21)
(-6)
(-23)
(+5)
(-4)
(-13)
(-7)
(-9)
(+9)
(+4)
(-4)
(-1)
(+16)
(+2)
(+10)
(+5)
(+15)
(-24)
(+20)
(-7)
(-15)
(+1)
(+11)
(-5)
(+2)
(+7)
(-23)
(-13)
(-5)
(+14)
(-1)
(-4)
(+3)
(-17)
(-4)
(+21)
(-18)
(+13)
(+3)
(-4)
(-7)
n/a
(-3)
(+23)
(+4)
(+6)
n/a
(+10)
(+21)
(-3)
(+9)
(-8)
(-28)
(+18)
(+4)
(+5)
n/a
(-3)
(+4)
(-7)
(-15)
(-12)
(+2)
(+24)
n/a
(-25)
(-1)
(-11)
(-32)
(-8)
(+16)
n/a
(+11)
(-26)
(=)
(+9)
(-38)
(-11)
(+9)
(-4)
(-3)
(=)
(-8)
(-19)
(-6)
(-10)
(-17)
(-14)
(-17)
(-23)
(-22)
(-5)
(-7)
(-4)
(-6)
(+9)
(+1)
(+12)
(+6)
(+6)
(-2)
(-8)
(-28)
(-3)
(-5)
(-5)
(+9)
0.80 0.74 0.77 0.88
0.79 0.67 0.75 0.95
0.78 0.63 0.80 0.90
0.77 0.69 0.71 0.91
0.77 0.62 0.81 0.88
0.76 0.67 0.74 0.88
0.75 0.65 0.73 0.87
0.75 0.73 0.68 0.83
0.75 0.59 0.75 0.90
0.74 0.69 0.71 0.82
0.74 0.63 0.73 0.85
0.73 0.55 0.79 0.87
0.73 0.58 0.73 0.88
0.73 0.68 0.76 0.74
0.72 0.62 0.66 0.89
0.72 0.69 0.65 0.81
0.71 0.62 0.73 0.80
0.71 0.63 0.68 0.84
0.71 0.62 0.64 0.88
0.71 0.56 0.74 0.84
0.71 0.62 0.72 0.79
0.70 0.68 0.81 0.62
0.70 0.73 0.62 0.76
0.70 0.66 0.65 0.79
0.70 0.63 0.78 0.70
0.70 0.38 0.90 0.82
0.70 0.75 0.64 0.70
0.70 0.78 0.59 0.73
0.70 0.58 0.67 0.84
0.70 0.58 0.71 0.80
0.69 0.58 0.62 0.88
0.69 0.58 0.61 0.88
0.69 0.54 0.65 0.88
0.69 0.52 0.71 0.83
0.68 0.57 0.70 0.78
0.67 0.65 0.57 0.79
0.67 0.66 0.56 0.80
0.67 0.61 0.59 0.81
0.67 0.65 0.55 0.81
0.67 0.60 0.58 0.82
0.66 0.59 0.62 0.78
0.66 0.57 0.65 0.76
0.66 0.59 0.54 0.85
0.66 0.61 0.62 0.75
0.66 0.57 0.56 0.84
0.65 0.45 0.80 0.71
0.65 0.66 0.64 0.65
0.65 0.55 0.60 0.80
0.65 0.53 0.71 0.70
0.65 0.58 0.64 0.72
0.65 0.60 0.49 0.84
0.65 0.54 0.50 0.89
0.64 0.65 0.40 0.88
0.64 0.61 0.76 0.55
0.64 0.46 0.74 0.72
0.64 0.57 0.60 0.75
0.64 0.59 0.56 0.76
0.63 0.49 0.72 0.70
0.63 0.70 0.61 0.59
0.63 0.57 0.65 0.67
0.63 0.74 0.51 0.64
0.62 0.54 0.55 0.77
0.62 0.64 0.56 0.65
0.61 0.53 0.54 0.78
0.61 0.43 0.62 0.79
0.61 0.59 0.74 0.49
0.60 0.59 0.55 0.65
0.60 0.49 0.61 0.69
0.59 0.46 0.73 0.58
0.59 0.50 0.54 0.73
0.58 0.60 0.54 0.61
0.58 0.46 0.70 0.59
0.58 0.30 0.65 0.79
0.58 0.60 0.70 0.43
0.58 0.50 0.51 0.72
0.58 0.58 0.53 0.62
0.57 0.44 0.59 0.70
0.57 0.38 0.59 0.74
0.57 0.41 0.61 0.69
0.57 0.53 0.78 0.40
0.57 0.39 0.56 0.75
0.56 0.43 0.72 0.53
0.55 0.45 0.83 0.38
0.55 0.48 0.52 0.66
0.55 0.43 0.57 0.66
0.55 0.34 0.50 0.82
0.55 0.54 0.49 0.62
0.55 0.45 0.89 0.30
0.55 0.36 0.62 0.66
0.55 0.41 0.53 0.71
0.55 0.59 0.56 0.49
0.54 0.43 0.56 0.64
0.54 0.46 0.77 0.39
0.54 0.23 0.75 0.63
0.53 0.46 0.42 0.72
0.53 0.45 0.41 0.74
0.53 0.30 0.61 0.68
0.53 0.41 0.90 0.28
0.53 0.58 0.66 0.35
0.53 0.40 0.78 0.41
0.52 0.48 0.49 0.59
0.52 0.46 0.73 0.38
0.52 0.49 0.58 0.49
0.51 0.63 0.43 0.46
0.50 0.32 0.48 0.71
0.50 0.48 0.29 0.73
0.50 0.40 0.28 0.81
0.49 0.43 0.40 0.66
0.49 0.38 0.42 0.69
0.49 0.41 0.72 0.35
0.49 0.40 0.78 0.29
0.49 0.38 0.50 0.58
0.49 0.46 0.67 0.33
0.49 0.32 0.88 0.26
0.48 0.42 0.18 0.84
0.48 0.41 0.25 0.77
0.47 0.29 0.34 0.78
0.47 0.48 0.69 0.24
0.47 0.36 0.80 0.24
0.46 0.27 0.36 0.75
0.46 0.36 0.21 0.81
0.45 0.30 0.27 0.78
0.44 0.30 0.64 0.39
0.44 0.39 0.61 0.32
0.44 0.42 0.37 0.53
0.42 0.53 0.31 0.40
0.37 0.15 0.24 0.73
1
EAPI 2017 score on a scale of 0 to 1
2
Change in ranking versus the 2009 benchmark
Emerging and
developing Europe
Latin America
and the Caribbean
Advanced
economies
Commonwealth of
Independent States
Emerging and
developing Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa Middle East,
North Africa and Pakistan
Country 2009-17
trend2
2017
score1
Country 2009-17
trend2
2017
score1
Notes:
- For the EAPI 2017 methodology, see the methodological addendum at the end of this report.
- Country scores are rounded to two decimal places, but exact figures are used to determine rankings. Therefore, countries with the same EAPI score may have different rankings.
1
13
25
37
49
7
19
31
43
55
65
77
89
101
100
113
71
83
95
107
119
4
16
28
40
52
10
22
34
46
58
61
68
80
92
104
116
74
86
98
110
122
125
2
14
26
38
50
8
20
32
44
56
66
78
90
102
114
72
84
96
108
120
5
17
29
41
53
11
23
35
47
59
62
69
81
93
105
117
75
87
99
111
123
126
3
15
27
39
51
9
21
33
45
57
67
79
91
103
115
73
85
97
109
121
6
18
30
42
54
12
24
36
48
60
63
64
70
82
94
106
118
76
88
112
124
127
Ukraine
Honduras
Notes:
Figure 2: The energy architecture performance index 2017 ranking and results
1
EAPI 2017 score on a scale of 0 to 1 2
Change in ranking versus the 2009 benchmark
– For the EAPI 2017 methodology, see the methodological addendum at the end of this report.
– Country scores are rounded to two decimal places, but exact figures are used to determine rankings. Therefore,
countries with the same EAPI score may have different rankings.

Key findings
The following sections explore the key findings from this
year’s EAPI, including insights from top performers, the most
significant changes in performance, and opportunities for
improvement across specific sides of the energy triangle.
This information was analysed making use of the latest data
from the EAPI.
Top performers come in all shapes and sizes
This year’s list of top performers remains fairly stable against
the 2016 cohort. Ireland (16th), Germany (19th) and the
Slovak Republic (20th) are the only new entrants in the top
20. Top performers share a number of characteristics. They
tend to be smaller countries – for example, Switzerland
(1st), Uruguay (10th), Portugal (11th) and Slovenia (13th)
– which makes it comparatively easier to enact changes in
their energy systems than in those of larger countries. Most
of the highest performers are also advanced economies,
defined principally as having a high level of gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita, diversified exports, and being well
integrated into the global financial system (12).
However, a significant number of countries do not fit this
mould and demonstrate that few boundary constraints limit
high performance. In fact, high performers come in all
shapes and sizes. While small economies are common,
Figure 3: Top performers come in all shapes and sizes
EAPI 2017 rank mapped against GDP per capita and net energy importer/exporter status
France (5th), the United Kingdom (15th) and Germany
(19th) are examples of large economies, defined in GDP, that
are also top 20 performers on the EAPI. And, although the
top 20 commonly have a high GDP per capita, an advanced
economy by no means guarantees a high-performing energy
sector, nor is it a prerequisite (Figure 3). Paraguay (22nd)
and Albania (25th) are strong examples of this, with GDPs
per capita in the bottom 40% for the cohort, yet are found in
the top 20% on the EAPI. Countries with large supplies of
natural resources are at an advantage in being able to boost
their economies and provide their populations with secure,
low-cost energy, if managed well. However, the majority of
the top 20 are net importers of energy, reflecting their lack of
natural resource endowment, with the exceptions of Norway
(2nd) and Colombia (8th), as net exporters, and Denmark
(4th), which is close to parity on this metric.4
These net
importers of the top 20 show that weaknesses on individual
indicators can be overcome through a balanced focus on
others.
The many variations in the contexts of the top performers
underscores the potential of any country to make
improvements in providing secure, affordable and
sustainable energy to its population, regardless of its
economy’s size, its level of advancement, geographical
region or exporter status.
Paraguay (22nd)
Albania (25th)
Norway (2nd)
120 30110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40
EAPI 2017 rank
0
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
120
GDPpercapita(incurrent'000$)
Advanced economies
Emerging and developing economies
Net energy importer
Net energy exporter
Colombia (8th)
EAPI 2017
Top 20
1020 1

European countries dominate the leader board
Switzerland (1st) tops the rankings for the third consecutive
year, benefiting from a diverse supply mix, low-energy
intensity and low carbon dioxide (CO2
) emissions from
electricity production. It has continued to improve its scores
since last year in economic growth and development (5th to
3rd) and environmental sustainability (18th to 16th), staying
constant for energy access and security (7th). Switzerland
has achieved improvements or maintained its position across
all EAPI indicators, with the exception of the diversification of
its import counterparts, where it moved from 52nd to 63rd,
highlighting a need to consider further diversifying these
sources. However, clouds are on the horizon, with
negotiations on bilateral energy agreements with the
European Union (EU) recently stalling after the referendum on
immigration, and with the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the
EU, which is likely to impact these discussions.
Switzerland is followed closely by Norway (2nd), Sweden
(3rd), Denmark (4th) and France (5th), cementing their
position as the top five countries on the EAPI from last year
(with France and Denmark switching ranks). Nordic
economies have successfully balanced performance across
each side of the energy triangle. Norway ranks 1st on energy
access and security, reflecting how it has successfully
translated a high supply of natural resources into benefits
across its entire energy system. Sweden ranks in the top 10
globally on environmental sustainability, with investment in
renewables paying off. From being heavily reliant on oil in the
1970s to achieving one of the highest shares of renewables
across the EU, it has reached 50% of consumption from
renewable energy before the 2020 deadline. Denmark is 8th
on economic growth and development, achieving low levels
of energy intensity and competitive energy prices.
The 28 Member States of the EU (EU28) dominate the top of
the EAPI, making up 14 of the 20 highest-performing
countries and all sitting in the top half of the table, with the
exception of Cyprus (67th) and Malta (71st). While not part
of the EU, Norway and Switzerland also benefit from many of
the factors driving this group’s success. As a cluster, the
EU28 outperform the average on 13 of 18 indicators (Figure
4). The group has maintained or increased its score on all
indicators compared to the 2009 EAPI benchmark, with the
exception of the two indicators measuring price distortion for
gasoline and diesel fuel. This drop in score is indicative of the
general trend in the EU of increasing taxes on fuels. The more
modest decrease in the score for diesel price distortion
reflects an overall lower rate of tax on this fuel compared to
gasoline. This difference has contributed to an increasing
“dieselization” of the EU’s vehicle fleet, encouraged by
governments nudging their populations towards a higher
average fuel economy for passenger vehicles (the increase
for this indicator, averaged across the EU28, was 0.03 in the
2009-2017 period).
The EU28’s performance is underpinned by advantages
gained through a long history of regional coordination
between Member States, which began almost three decades
ago when the European Commission started to focus on
cross-border trade and increasing competition for lower
energy prices. The first initiatives to liberalize the energy
market in the 1990s targeted electricity and gas, with the
focus in the new millennium shifting first to renewable energy
targets and then to energy security issues (13). In 2007, An
Energy Policy for Europe set objectives covering all three
sides of the energy triangle. The results to date of these
ongoing efforts include strong regional infrastructure links,
increased cross-border trade in gas and electricity, and
healthy levels of competition across the entire energy value
chain. The impact of these efforts is reflected in the EU28’s
EAPI scores, which are particularly high on the use of market
forces (low levels of price distortion for gasoline [0.85] and
diesel [0.90]) and diversity of the total primary energy supply
(0.79).
As a cohort in general, the EU28 is challenged by a lack of
natural resources, resulting in a high dependence on imports
(scoring 0.23 for energy imports as a percentage of GDP)
and limited contribution of fuel exports to its economies
(0.06). In addition to a wide diversity of import counterparts
(0.81), the advantages of regional integration contribute to
mitigating these weaknesses and maintaining high-
performing energy sectors. Recognizing these benefits, the
EU’s Energy Union is set to further strengthen the internal
energy market as well as address other areas for
improvement, including security of supply and sustainability
of the regional energy system, as reflected in targets
embedded in the Energy Strategy for 2020, 2030 and 2050
(14). However, much work remains to be done to meet these
targets, not least in sustainability. Alternative and nuclear
energy, as a percentage of the EU28’s total primary energy
supply, is notably low, and lags behind the overall average.
With the exceptions of Sweden, France and Finland, none of
the Member States exceed 50% on this metric. While the
cohort has made marginal gains in this area since 2009 (from
0.21 to 0.26), a long path remains to achieving the targeted
levels of decarbonization in the energy mix.

Figure 4: Average indicator scores for European Union (EU28) and all EAPI countries*
* EU28 scores for 2017 and 2009; all 127 EAPI-ranked countries scores for 2017
The world’s biggest energy consumers are being
outperformed
Major energy consumers continue to struggle to take leading
positions on the EAPI. While showing strengths in certain
areas, and early signs of strong trajectories in others, China
(95th), India (87th), Japan (45th), the Russian Federation
(48th) and the United States (52nd) have either slipped in
the rankings since 2009 or experienced only marginal gains.
The energy consumption of these nations dwarfs that of the
highest-performing top 20 (Figure 5). Big consumers need to
intensify their efforts and overcome the inherent challenges
of their large, complex energy systems; doing so will allow
them to make a disproportionately positive impact on global
energy architecture. With the world’s energy markets
underpinned by the global economy’s performance, the
global energy sector will continue to be challenged for as
long as these countries, which are some of the largest
economies in the world, find it difficult to exceed average
performance.
China (95th) is showing signs of tackling the significant
challenge to enable rapid growth of its energy sector while
also balancing the three sides of the energy triangle. The
world’s largest energy consumer drops one place in this
year’s rankings. The country’s strongest score is for
diversification of import counterparts, where it achieves first
place globally. While China has taken significant steps to
respond to growing air pollution, sustainability remains the
greatest challenge (112th on this side of the energy triangle).
China lags behind other global superpowers, with high levels
of energy intensity (107th) and high CO2
emissions from
electricity production (102nd) impacting its comparative
performance. To improve energy-sector competitiveness,
China is taking targeted action across its energy system. The
13th Five-Year Plan includes targets and measures to
address key issues, such as air pollution and climate change,
and ranges from setting mandatory targets for cutting
emissions and improving efficiency to launching a nation-
wide carbon market. China also pledged to reduce energy
intensity by 60-65% by 2030 as part of the Paris Agreement.
India (87th) is gradually improving its performance on the
EAPI (90th last year). Similar to China, the country boasts a
strong score on the indicator for diversification of import
counterparts (5th), but its energy system continues to face
some significant challenges, particularly in environmental
sustainability (109th). India has some of the lowest scores in
the EAPI for CO2
emissions from electricity production and
PM2.5 levels (117th and 123rd, respectively). While sources of
pollution are diverse and intermittent (e.g. agricultural crop
burning, refuse combustion, fireworks), the energy sector is a
large, consistent contributor to this issue of major concern.
Many solutions have been attempted with varying degrees of
impact, but the country sorely needs a comprehensive plan
of action to implement an effective and sustainable answer.
India also faces an uphill battle to increase energy access
and security (95th). A large percentage of the population still
lacks access to electricity (101st) and uses solid fuels for

cooking (108th). The government of Prime Minister Modi is
taking action on this, having committed to increase solar
power capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2022, which would make
India a leader in renewable capacity.
This year, Japan (45th) has managed to turn around its
declining performance on the EAPI for the first time since
placing 21st in the 2009 benchmark and reaching a low of
51st last year. This indicates the country is beginning to
overcome the long-lasting impact of the 2011 Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster on its energy sector. Japan is
diversifying its energy import counterparts (15th), from which
it imports fossils fuels that now dominate its total primary
energy supply. Expensive imported fossil fuels filled a 30%
gap left in the electricity supply following the disaster (15).
The effects of this are still clearly present on all sides of the
energy triangle, particularly in indicators measuring electricity
prices for industry (55th), use of alternative and nuclear
energy (102nd), CO2
emissions from electricity production
(88th) and net energy imports as a percentage of energy use
(121st). Japan faces many challenges, and restarting its
nuclear power reactors is of primary importance to
overcoming many of them, judged as “critical” to the success
of the country’s energy policy, according to the International
Energy Agency (IEA) (15). In the meantime, the country is
taking advantage of new opportunities to drive improvements
in the energy sector, notably the deregulation of its retail and
generation electricity markets in 2016. By creating one of the
largest deregulated electricity markets in the world, this move
may help to significantly modernise Japan’s energy sector
and lower hiked prices.
The Russian Federation (48th) has improved its ranking
marginally since last year. Its energy sector remains heavily
reliant on oil and gas, with a weak performance on the
proportion of renewable energy in its total primary energy
supply (92nd). Its highest score was on energy access and
security (37th), due to a high level of self-sufficiency. The
country’s performance on the EAPI points to high energy
intensity (110th) and high levels of fossil fuel subsidies (105th
and 102nd for gasoline and diesel, respectively), as well as
areas for improvement within environmental sustainability
(75th overall). While the sector has long acted as an engine
for growth in the country, contributing over 25% of GDP (16),
the challenges Russia faces will only become more acute
given the current headwinds, most notably the lower price of
oil.
When compared to last year, the United States (52nd) has
dropped four places. It achieves its highest score on energy
access and security (5th), and has an increasingly diverse
total primary energy supply (19th). The surge in shale gas and
growing investment in renewables, especially solar,
underscores this performance. It lags behind its peers in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) on environmental sustainability (105th), with
particularly low scores on indicators relating to emissions.
The country still has to tackle a high energy intensity (86th).
Overall, the context is shifting, with the low price of oil at the
root of declining investment in oil and gas and of lower
production levels, and increased regulations on emissions
likely to impact the future shape of its energy architecture.

Figure 5: World’s largest consumers dwarf the energy consumption of highest-performing countries
Colour indicates
EAPI 2017 rank
1 127
Top 20 Countries ranked 21st to 127th
Size indicates total primary
energy supply, 2014
(kilotons of oil equivalent) High Low
Germany
France
United
Kingdom
Spain
China India
United States
Russian
Federation
Japan Brazil
Canada Saudi
Arabia
Korea, Rep.
Iran, Islamic
Rep.
Indonesia
Mexico
South Africa
Italy
Thailand
Nigeria
The performance divide between top-ranking countries
and the rest of the table is growing
Compared to last year, the average increase in the EAPI score
of the group of top-20 highest-performing countries is double
that of all other countries. This growing difference in the
magnitude of performance improvement between the two
groups reflects a further strengthening of the energy sectors of
countries that already perform well.
The rate of improvement displayed by these highest-
performing countries is driven primarily by improvements
across economic growth and development, with the group’s
average improvement on sub-index almost three times that for
all other countries. Improving the role of the energy system in a
country’s economy is often the most difficult task, as reflected
by this sub-index being the consistently lowest-performing
one, year to year. It is also the most volatile, fluctuating in
response to swings in the global economy. This highlights the
challenges policy-makers face to ensure their transitioning
energy systems are competitive and resilient to unforeseeable
events. The above-average improvement of the top 20 in this
area was in part due to much stronger improvement in the
indicator measuring electricity prices for industry,
demonstrating the group’s ability to pass on lower commodity
prices through market pricing mechanisms. The group has
mostly benefited from the fall in the price of oil, seeing less of a
decrease in the score measuring fuel exports as a percentage
of GDP. This also highlights the lack of dependency on the
production and trade of fossil fuels in many of the group’s
economies.
Where the rest of the table has averaged a decrease in
environmental sustainability, the highest performers have
maintained a steadily strong performance. This is primarily tied
to the majority of these countries making incremental
improvements in the ratio of low-carbon fuels in their energy
mix and improving average fuel economy for passenger
vehicles. The average increase in energy access and security
for the top 20 is in line with that of the rest of the cohort.
Energy security is a key concern, as many of these countries’
energy sectors depend on energy imports.

Steering energy systems through
transition
The global energy system is often perceived as slow to
change, as reflected by the modest improvement in the 2017
average EAPI score compared to the 2009 benchmark (0.78
vs 0.77). However, a number of countries are challenging this
view of collective inertia, having significantly improved their
rank since 2009 (Figure 6); those include Jamaica (116th to
92nd), Nicaragua (95th to 72nd), Tajikistan (66th to 46th),
Mexico (59th to 44th), Luxembourg (37th to 23rd) and
Uruguay (25th to 10th). Achieving such improvements is no
small feat, no matter what the starting point. As policy-
makers pursue their own improvements, they often look for
lessons learned from analogous countries. Regrettably, no
solution can be seen as a one-size-fits-all remedy, and the
differences between countries mean that each needs to find
its particular path.
However, some commonalities surface when looking at the
journeys of these most-improved countries. This section
draws on examples from three of them to examine some of
the factors that have supported improved performance. The
countries have been selected from the bottom, middle and
top third of the rankings to represent a diverse range of
baseline starting points.
The three countries from the list of most improved are:
– Uruguay – A small nation that made big step changes in
the performance of an already strong energy system
– Mexico – A large country that made significant
improvements (from a starting point almost in line with
the average) while undergoing a dramatic series of
cross-sector reforms
– Jamaica – A regional leader in transitioning to a
sustainable energy system, whose national energy policy
is now praised as a model for lawmakers across the
region
Additional examples among the consistently high performers
exhibit similar commonalities:
– France – With an advanced economy, the country is
speeding up its energy transition following
implementation of the Paris Agreement to diversify its
nuclear-dominated energy mix, reduce emissions and
strengthen security of supply
– Sweden – Over the last few decades, the nation has
moved to a position where it can easily meet most energy
demands domestically, and is now pursuing a strong
series of sustainable energy policy objectives
As explored earlier in this report, many factors influence the
direction of an energy system. But closer examination of
these countries’ journeys reveals three principles that are
effective for steering energy systems through transition.
These are:
1. Frame the long-term direction for the energy sector,
and commit to it
2. Enable the energy transition with adaptable,
co-designed policies
3. Steward investment to the most impactful areas
These principles are mutually reinforcing, building on each
other to create affordable, secure and sustainable energy
systems. A clear frame and long-term direction is needed to
form the basis of policy goals and provide a sense of stability
required to encourage investment. Adaptable, co-designed
policies establish the conditions for achieving the energy
sector’s vision. Stewardship of investment directs the capital
required to support the energy transition to the right projects
that will drive progress. Taken together, these principles have
been shown to contribute to high-performing energy sectors
and generate significant improvements, as explored in the
next section.

Figure 6: Significant improvements in EAPI ranks among many countries (2009 to 2017)
Luxembourg: 37th to 23rd
+16 +5 +4
Jamaica: 116th to 92nd
+23 -2 -1
Nicaragua: 95th to 72nd
+19 +1 +0
Uruguay: 25th to 10th
+14 +10 +26
Tajikistan: 66th to 46th
+17 -4 +19Mexico: 59th to 44th
+29 +10 +4
Numbers indicate change in EAPI rank, 2009 to 2017:
Economic growth
and development
Environmental
sustainability
Energy access
and security
-0.09 +0.09
Colours indicate change in EAPI score, 2009 to 2017:
0

Country focus
This section sets the context of the energy sectors of France,
Sweden, Uruguay, Mexico and Jamaica, before drawing
examples from these countries as they relate to the three
principles for steering energy systems through transition.
The time series analysis throughout this section uses “real-
time” measures for the EAPI. In other words, the EAPI
methodology has been applied retrospectively for the years
2009 to 2015, aligning the year of the data source to the year
of the EAPI score as far as possible (Figure 7). For example,
the real-time EAPI 2013 score is primarily based on data
sources published for the year 2013. This allows clear links to
be drawn between changes in energy-sector performance
and causal events.
Figure 7: Movement of EAPI scores of selected countries compared to the average

Uruguay‘s total primary energy supply comprises
biowaste and hydropower sources, with a growing
share of wind and solar, and a large proportion of
oil despite the lack of any national hydrocarbon
reserves. The country has bolstered its lead over the average
EAPI score with balanced performance improvements across
all three sides of the energy triangle in the period covered by
the time series. In particular, greater diversification of energy
sources (0.61 to 0.76) through an increase in renewable
energy generation and capacity (0.34 to 0.54), and a
reduction in fuel imports (0.27 to 0.83) have driven this
improvement. Closer inspection of Uruguay’s performance
on the EAPI shows how external events can test an energy
system’s strength. Its performance peaked in 2010, reflecting
the recovery from a 2008 drought that significantly affected
hydropower, a large component of Uruguay’s capacity to
generate electricity. This phenomenon was repeated in 2012.
In such situations, the shortfall is covered by importing
electricity from Argentina and using imported oil to generate
electricity, both of which have an adverse impact on several
indicators. Diversifying the energy supply, which has in part
driven Uruguay’s improving performance, addresses this
vulnerability.
Mexico is a net exporter of energy principally due
to its vast hydrocarbon reserves. The country’s
well-diversified total primary energy supply is
dominated by these sources, but includes a
growing share of renewables, which have significant
potential. Under President Enrique Peña Nieto’s leadership,
Mexico is undergoing broad reforms in education, financial
regulation, taxation, anti-trust, telecommunications and, not
least, energy. Major changes in the energy sector include
ending a state monopoly on oil and gas exploration and
production, transitioning continuously to a low-carbon
economy, and gradually liberalizing fossil-fuel prices. The
principle driver of Mexico’s accelerated performance was the
2013 decision to phase out fuel subsidies (see Figure 7 for
the impact of this move), with the underlying indicators for
gasoline and diesel price distortion both ultimately reaching
0.67, from 0.46 and 0.28, respectively. Furthermore,
integrating state utility companies into a single entity that is
operated more like a private-sector company has significantly
improved the quality of electricity supply (0.51 to 0.65).
Jamaica’s total primary energy supply is highly
dependent on imported fossil fuels, with well over
90% of its electricity sourced from petroleum-
based power plants (17). In recent years, lower
commodity prices have partially helped to improve the
island’s EAPI score by driving an increase in the indicator
measuring fuel imports as a percentage of GDP (0.00 to
0.34). In general, Jamaica has generated small but steady
improvements across all sides of the energy triangle,
including reducing the distortion of fuel prices (0.46 to 0.77
for gasoline, and 0.57 to 0.71 for diesel) and increasing the
quality of electricity supply (0.53 to 0.62). If other measures
are not taken, the improvement in fuel imports as a
percentage of GDP will last only as long as low prices.
However, Jamaica is taking steps to reduce the volume of
imports as well; it is continuing to decrease energy intensity
(0.29 to 0.36), and is taking increasing advantage of
alternative forms of energy (0.14 to 0.19) by using its
impressive potential in renewable energy. If exploited,
renewables could meet 100% of electricity demand (17).
Jamaica’s most recent energy policy goals lay out aggressive
targets, namely for renewables to reach a 30% share of the
energy mix and for energy intensity to be reduced by 50% by
2030.
Sweden is one of Europe’s greatest success
stories for clean energy production. In 1970, oil
accounted for over 75% of the country’s total
primary energy supply. The decade’s ensuing oil
shocks forced a rebalancing of the energy mix, to a point
where low-carbon renewable sources now account for the
largest proportion of total primary energy supply, followed
closely by nuclear. At the same time, Sweden increased the
reliability and comprehensiveness of its energy infrastructure.
Accordingly, the country’s consistently high performance was
driven by world-class scores on indicators from all sides of
the energy triangle, including percentage of energy use from
alternative and nuclear energy (0.71), CO2
emissions from
electricity production (0.96), PM2.5 levels (1.00), electrification
rate (1.00), quality of electricity supply (1.00), electricity prices
for industry (0.88) and percentage of population using solid
fuels for cooking (1.00).
France’s total primary energy supply is dominated
by nuclear power, due to a long-standing policy
based on energy security. In fact, nuclear power
currently generates about three-quarters of the
electricity supply. Because the cost of generating electricity is
low, the country is the world’s largest net exporter of
electricity, which contributes over €3 billion annually to the
economy (18). These are the foundational factors for France’s
continuously high performance, driving some of the highest
scores on the EAPI on the environmental sustainability and
the energy access and security sub-indexes (0.81 and 0.88,
respectively). More recently, the country has sought to
diversify its total primary energy supply away from nuclear,
capping this capacity and expanding renewable energy
sources to account for 32% of consumption by 2030. Many
challenges remain on the path to meeting this ambitious
target, including navigating potential supply shortages that
result from nuclear reactors being taken offline.

Examining the journeys of Uruguay, Mexico and Jamaica,
which have made strides in their energy sector performance
since 2009, and those of Sweden and France, both of
whom have been consistently high performers, revealed
three principles that are effective for steering energy systems
through transition. This section explores the principles and
draws on examples from these countries.
1. Frame the long-term direction for the energy sector,
and commit to it
Energy sectors are characterized by long investment cycles,
as the scale and complexity of their infrastructure mean that
change takes time to plan, enact and create an impact. Scale
and complexity are critical, demanding a patient and
incremental approach. Moreover, because energy
architecture is both a local and global issue, nations need to
understand the broader implications of their actions, and the
international constraints they may face, when creating
enabling environments.
Setting a frame for the long-term direction of the energy
sector helps to stay the course, from planning changes to
seeing results. Governments go through several cycles within
such long time frames, with room for disruption and
substantial change in the sector and the global economy.
Today’s energy landscape looks very different to how it did a
decade ago, and will likely look significantly different in
another ten years’ time. Importantly, to bring greater balance
to the energy triangle and enable an effective transition,
policy-makers must look to the long term, providing a more
stable policy environment based on in-depth understanding
of the trade-offs they make. Where possible, decision-
makers should aim to take actions that result in positive net
benefits for all three imperatives of the triangle. A frame
needs to establish a clear vision and direction, while being
flexible enough to adapt to changing realities and overcome
unforeseeable blocks.
A long-term frame provides a vision for the energy sector’s
many stakeholders to embrace. As such, a credible
commitment to this vision is critical towards creating the
required confidence – for stakeholders to make meaningful
progress and for investors to commit capital. Credible
commitment from the top levels of government means
making public declarations of intent that are in line with the
vision, and embedding that vision in policy and legislation
where appropriate. It further means passing the mandate to
act on this vision on to institutions that outlast individual
government leaders. This provides a clear and unifying
direction for all stakeholders and investors to work towards
and be confident that priorities will not change.
Uruguay’s long-term vision through to 20305
is
comprehensive, covering all sides of the energy triangle and
providing a clear direction for the sector, while at the same
time being inherently flexible. The government has made its
vision credible by reaching a consensus on policy among
many stakeholders, including opposing political parties, and
by having built and involved strong institutions that are
independent from politics, such as the national energy
companies, Usinas y Trasmisiones Eléctricas (UTE) covering
electricity, and Administración Nacional de Combustibles,
Alcohol y Portland (ANCAP) covering fuels.
Mexico’s established a clear long-term energy strategy
through major energy reform, with the main goal to offset a
steep decline in hydrocarbon production by accessing
untapped deep-water and unconventional reservoirs. The
reform materialized shortly before the decline in the price of
oil; however, the government’s strongly underlined
commitment to the strategy has been key to keeping
operators interested in the country’s potential. In 2014,
Mexico’s president demonstrated the government’s
commitment to the energy transformation when he signed
the 21 parts of Mexico’s energy reform into law. Legislation
divides the mandate for regulatory oversight of the sector into
five separate agencies. And beyond exploiting new
hydrocarbon reserves, the country has a clear target for
clean energy sources to provide 35% of total generation
capacity by 2024, rising to 50% by 2050 (19).
Jamaica’s commitment to its long-term 2030 vision for the
energy sector is established in the highest level of
government. The prime minister has set a clear mandate for
every Jamaican to be part of its implementation. The vision is
embedded throughout the national energy policy, which in
turn is translated into strategies and specific areas of action,
such as diversifying fuel sources and developing renewables.
The mandate for administering these is given to a range of
ministries, agencies and departments.
France’s vision for its energy sector was founded strongly on
energy security, in response to the first oil shock in 1974. The
French government’s strong commitment to this vision over
the following decades served as a foundation for establishing
the country’s massive nuclear power capacity. More recently,
the vision, set out to 2030, has shifted to include greater
focus on energy efficiency, reduced emissions and a larger
share of renewables in final energy consumption. In 2007,
France created a single ministry with the mandate to deal
with energy, the environment and land-use, as well as
transport issues, in an integrated way under one banner of
sustainable development. The size of this ministry, and the
importance it has in the overall institutional framework, is a
clear signal of France’s continued commitment to its vision
for energy transition (20).

2. Enable the energy transition with adaptable,
co-designed policies
Energy policies are the tools governments can use to set the
conditions for transforming their energy sectors. Quality
policies formalize a government’s vision for the energy sector,
setting realistic short-, medium- and long-term goals that
direct and drive progress. A compelling link exists between
well-designed policies, as measured by the World Bank’s
Regulatory Quality Indicator6
, and the highest-performing
countries on the EAPI (Figure 8), highlighting how important
policies are to the sector’s governance and to achieving a
top-performing energy system.
When formulating energy policy, energy sector goals should
be aligned with other areas of the economy and related
policies. This sets the right conditions for the energy transition,
which itself is fuelled by innovation and evolving technologies.
Effective energy-sector policies help support this innovation
without picking technology winners, allowing the most
appropriate solutions to emerge organically. One of the 10
fundamental elements of Jamaica’s long-term strategic vision
for its energy sector is that it should have “the flexibility and
creativity to adopt and adapt to new and appropriate energy
technologies … that may emerge over the long term” (21).
Stakeholder groups operating in silos will not create a
successful transition. While governments formulate the
policies, other stakeholders are ultimately relied on to
implement the changes and achieve the goals they direct. To
implement policies effectively, however, good policy design
involves the implementing institutions and end-users to
Figure 8: The compelling link between well-designed policies and high performance on the EAPI
EAPI2017score
-2.5 +2.5-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 +0.5 +1.0 +1.5 +1.0
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
2014 World Bank Regulatory Quality score
EAPI 2017
Top 20
Advanced economies
Emerging and developing Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean
Commonwealth of Independent States
Emerging and developing Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan
rigorously test policies and assess their feasibility. Through
this process, the formulators and executors build an important
sense of joint-ownership ahead of implementation, instilling
clear understanding of the policies’ intent among all parties.
Mexico’s reforms have required significant institutional
development to ensure that stakeholders are aligned to the
objectives. Notably, Pemex, the state-owned oil company, is
migrating to a model closer to that of a private-sector
company, while the electricity sector has opened up to private
investment (mainly in generation) in some stages of the value
chain. The government additionally created new regulatory
agencies, and significantly increased the budgets of others
– fivefold in some cases – so that reforms could be more
easily implemented.

Sweden’s central government leads energy policy design,
with support from several implementing national and local
authorities. The government gives administrative boards the
mandate to formulate regional energy and climate strategies
and to represent it at the regional level, in collaboration with
regional actors (22).
Uruguay laid the foundations for successful policy design in
2005 by creating an interministerial coordination group, which
brought together all national entities involved in the policy-
making process to start a dialogue on energy policy goals. At
least 11 institutions are involved in the process, ranging from
ministries focused on agriculture to sports and tourism. This
broad dialogue and coordination among stakeholders has
been critical for effective policy design, with clear mandates
and a sense of shared ownership creating the conditions for
successful implementation. Cooperation with UTE and
ANCAP throughout the policy-design process had also been
a key success factor for implementation.
3. Steward investment to the most impactful areas
Significant investment is required to make progress on the
energy transition and meet growing energy demand. The IEA
estimates that $48 trillion in investment is needed globally to
meet energy needs to 2035 (11). To invest with confidence,
industry will need stable policy regimes to allay both the
regulatory risk of the initial investment and the refinancing risk.
National elections will likely occur during the long lead times
involved, as well as several changes of government over the
investment’s operating life. Policy support is thus required not
only from the incumbent government, but also through a
long-term strategy with broad-based political support.
Jamaica’s long-term vision and expressed commitment are
complemented by many opportunities for private-sector
companies to invest in its energy sector, including a
deregulated generation environment, a liberalized fuel sector
and opportunities for commercial hydrocarbon exploration.
Private-sector investment requires stewardship to ensure it
focuses on the right areas. Choosing the right public-private-
sector partnership models is important to promoting
investment that focuses on areas best serving the overall
vision. In some cases, the need for investment means
opening up historically publicly monopolized energy sectors
to the private sector, as Mexico has done successfully with its
oil and gas and electricity sectors.
Innovative approaches are required to ensure investment is
stewarded to maintain an attractive environment for investors.
This was achieved in Uruguay by framing private projects
within contracts with public companies. Other tools include
target setting, bidding processes and long-term contracts.
More conventionally, the country is also ambitiously promoting
offshore exploration to find and develop potential domestic
hydrocarbon resources. Within Jamaica’s liberalized
generation market, the government has issued requests for
proposals for energy plants to add capacity to the national
grid, specifying the range of renewable technologies that
could be used (23). The construction of France’s nuclear-
dominated energy sector, which began in earnest in the
1970s, was financed with a mix of commercial loans and
investment from financially strong and vertically integrated
state-owned utility companies, such as Électricité de France.
More recently, as the country looks to diversity its energy mix
with renewables, a number of steps have been taken to
secure the investment required to drive this transition,
including simplifying administrative procedures, increasing the
number of calls for tender, improving financing conditions,
and supporting French industry and the emergence of
innovative technologies (24).
The early deregulation of Sweden’s electricity markets in
1996 helped to unlock the private investment required to drive
the technological innovation underpinning much of sector’s
efficiency today. Sweden was the first country to install smart
meters for its customers (in 2009). It also collaborates with
Norway to issue green electricity certificates to producers as
part of a market-based support scheme designed to boost
renewable electricity production in both countries. The
scheme is technology-neutral, with all forms of renewable
electricity entitled to certificates. By creating demand through
government-imposed quota obligations, it establishes the
certificates’ value, which means the market determines the
price of electricity certificates and which projects are
developed. Producers of renewable electricity gain additional
income from selling certificates, which increases the
attractiveness of developing new electricity production based
on renewable sources (25).
Mexico’s recent structural reforms have developed new
special investment vehicles designed to spur investment in
energy assets and a wider range of industries. Fibra E allows
the state-owned productives to monetize revenue streams
arising from mature energy and infrastructure projects, to
some extent replicating the master limited partnerships which
fuelled the US shale boom. Additionally, Investment Projects
backed Certificates (CerPI) a new investment vehicle for
private equity with flexible corporate governance, is designed
to attract top local and international institutional investors. The
Mexican government has also engaged in significant public
policy and development by creating scholarships and training
to study energy-related disciplines, investment within non-
profit institutions and the promotion of domestic energy-
related industry. These are strong examples of being inspired
by successful methods in other countries and reinterpreting
them so they align with a country’s own national interests. In
addition, the Mexican Senate has agreed a comprehensive
range of fiscal regimes for international oil companies and
service providers to attract international investment and
participation.

Uruguay, Mexico, Jamaica, Sweden and France exhibit
many differences, from the scale of their geographies,
populations, economies and energy sectors through to the
composition of their primary energy supplies and endowment
of natural resources. This diversity is indicative of the huge
range of contexts across the EAPI’s 127 ranked countries.
Accordingly, the five countries show many differences in how
they have steered their energy sectors through transition, as
demonstrated by the wide breadth of the examples.
But despite these differences, their journeys revealed three
common underlying principles worthy of consideration by any
country looking to emulate their transitions:
– Setting a frame for the long-term direction of the energy
sector, and committing to it, will help bring greater
balance to the energy triangle and enable an effective
transition in the long term.
– Enabling the energy transition with adaptable, co-
designed policies will support the sustainability of energy
policies.
– Stewarding investment to the most impactful areas
unlocks and focuses the capital required to fuel the
transition.
These principles are mutually reinforcing, building on each
other to allow for robust energy architectures that provide
affordable, secure and sustainable energy.

Concluding remarks
The results of the Global Energy Architecture Performance
Index Report 2017 reveal nuances in the transitions of the
world’s energy systems. While advanced European
economies still hold many of the top ranks on the EAPI,
countries outside this peer group are amply represented.
This suggests that any country has the potential to provide
secure, affordable and sustainable energy to its population,
regardless of the size of its economy, its level of
advancement, geographical region or exporter status. In fact,
examining the history and ongoing transitions of some of the
EAPI’s high performers, as well as those of countries that
have made big step changes in performance over the past
eight years, indicate commonalities among all their
differences. These take form in three principles of energy-
sector governance. Under these principles, the paths the
countries take to steer their sectors through transition are
marked by differences. These differences, in turn, highlight
that every country needs a tailored approach to suit its
unique context while seeking to fulfil the same ultimate goal:
namely, a more sustainable, affordable, secure and inclusive
energy system.
Underneath the perceived inertia of the global energy
system, the EAPI highlights some significant movements of
individual countries and reveals progress on the energy
transition. Similarly, it calls attention to the challenges
countries continue to face. Energy architecture is large and
complex, and enormous legacy systems remain in place.
The scale and complexity involved will require that
stakeholders take an incremental approach, particularly if
they are to manage the economic impact of writing down
legacy assets. The transition continues to require sustained
efforts and deep collaboration between the public and
private sectors over the long term, in order to evolve energy
systems for the better.

Appendices
Addendum on methodology
This section presents the methodology for the global Energy
Architecture Performance Index (EAPI) 2017. A more detailed
description of the methodology is available online at http://
wef.ch/eapimethodology. The EAPI is a composite index that
measures a global energy system’s performance across the
three imperatives of the energy “triangle”: (i) economic
growth and development, (ii) environmental sustainability and
(iii) energy access and security.
Methodology overview
The EAPI focuses on tracking specific and output-oriented
indicators to measure the energy system performance of a
variety of countries. It includes 18 indicators, aggregated into
three baskets relating to the three imperatives, to both score
and rank the performance of each country’s energy
architecture. The EAPI is split into three sub-indexes. The
score attained on each sub-index is averaged to generate an
overall score. The three sub-indexes are:
1. Economic growth and development: The extent to which
energy architecture supports, rather than detracts from,
economic growth and development
2. Environmental sustainability: The extent to which energy
architecture has been constructed to minimize negative
environmental externalities
3. Energy access and security: The extent to which energy
architecture is at risk of an energy security impact, and
whether adequate access to energy is provided to all
parts of the population
Indicators: Selection criteria and profiles
Where possible, the EAPI team aimed to select indicators
against the following criteria:
– Output data only: Measuring output-oriented
observational data (with a specific, definable relationship
to the sub-index in question) or a best-available proxy,
rather than estimates
– Reliability: Using reliable source data from renowned
institutions
– Reusability: Sourcing data from providers with which
the EAPI can work on an annual basis, thus allowing for
data to be updated with ease
– Quality: Selecting data that represents the best
measure available given constraints; with this in mind, all
potential data sets were reviewed by the Expert Panel for
quality and verifiability, and those that did not meet these
basic quality standards were discarded
– Completeness: Using data of adequate global and
temporal coverage, consistently treated and checked for
periodicity to ensure the EAPI’s future sustainability
Where data is missing for a particular year within an indicator,
the latest available data point is extrapolated forwards until a
more recent result is obtained.
Key adjustments for EAPI 2017
The aim is to keep the methodology consistent with previous
years’ reports for year-on-year comparison. However, minor
adjustments are made to reflect issues such as
discontinuation of data and improvements to the model. The
key adjustments to this year’s report are:
– Normalization: Minor adjustments have been made in
normalization scores.
– Extreme values removed: For example, the electricity
price for Italy has been removed following reviews of
PX-Web databases of ENEL, the Italian electricity
company.
Indicators profile
Figure A.1 details each of the indicators selected, the weight
attributed to it within its basket (or sub-index), what it
measures and the energy system objective that it contributes
to, either positively or negatively.

Figure A1: EAPI 2017 indicators and weight
Energy
system
objective
Measure (of) Indicator name
Indicator
weight
Economicgrowthand
development
Intensity
Energy intensity, GDP per unit of energy use (PPP $ per
kg of oil equivalent)
0.25
Supports/detracts
from growth
Cost of energy imports (% GDP) 0.125
Value of energy exports (% GDP) 0.125
Affordability
Degree of artificial distortion to gasoline pricing (index) 0.125
Degree of artificial distortion to diesel pricing (index) 0.125
Electricity prices for industry ($ per kWh) 0.25
Environmentalsustainability
Ratio of low-carbon
fuel sources in the
energy mix
Alternative and nuclear energy (% of total energy use, incl.
biomass)
0.2
Emissions impact
CO2
emissions from electricity production, total gCO2
/kWh 0.2
Methane emissions in energy sector (metric tonnes of CO2
equivalent)/total population
0.1
Nitrous oxide emissions in energy sector (metric tonnes of
CO2
equivalent)/total population
0.1
PM2.5, country level (micrograms per cubic metre) 0.2
Average fuel economy for passenger cars (l/100 km) 0.2
Energyaccess
andsecurity
Level and quality of
access
Electrification rate (% of population) 0.2
Quality of electricity supply (1-7) 0.2
Percentage of population using solid fuels for cooking (%) 0.2
Diversity of supply Diversity of total primary energy supply (Herfindahl index) 0.1 / 0.2 7
Self-sufficiency
Import dependence (energy imports, net % energy use) 0.2
Diversification of import counterparts (Herfindahl index) 0.1 / 0 8
7
For the indicator on diversity of total primary energy supply, net exporters are given a weight of 0.2 (since they are not scored for the indicator on diversification of import
counterparts), whereas net importers are given a weight of 0.1 to form a mini-index for diversity of supply
8
The indicator on diversification of import counterparts only applies to net importers: for these countries, a weight of 0.1 is used (for net exporters, a weight of 0 is used)

Weights, measures and abbreviations

$ All $ in US$ unless otherwise noted
CerPI Investment Projects backed Certificates
CH4
Methane
CO2
Carbon dioxide
COP21
United Nations 21st Conference of the
Parties
EAPI Energy Architecture Performance Index
EU European Union
EU28
28 Member States of the European
Union
g Gram
GDP Gross domestic product
GIZ
German Federal Enterprise for
International Cooperation
HHI Herfindahl-Hirschman Index
IEA International Energy Agency
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LNG Liquefied natural gas
N2
O Nitrous oxide
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development
PM2.5
Particulate matter less than 2.5
micrometres in diameter (also called
“fine particles”)
PPP Purchasing power parity

Endnotes
1
Based on an average price of Brent crude per barrel,
$111.26 in 2011 (32) and $44.95 in 2016 (January to October)
(28).
2
Planned capital investment from 2015 to 2020, including
conventional exploration investment (26).
3
Ten of the biggest global utility companies, measured by
market capitalization, are: Duke Energy, Engie, National Grid,
Next Era, Enel, Dominion Resources, Iberdrola, Southern,
Exelon and Transcanada (29).
4
In accordance with latest available data from the World
Bank, 2014 (27).
5
The vision as laid out in the Energy Policy 2005-2030 is to
“satisfy energy requirements, at accurate and competitive
costs, promoting good energy consumption practices
towards energetic independence, in the framework of
regional integration, using energy policy as an instrument to
develop productive capacities and to promote social
integration” (30).
6
The Regulatory Quality Indicator, part of the World Bank’s
set of worldwide governance indicators, is formed from
sources that measure concepts such as unfair competitive
practices, price controls, discriminatory tariffs, the
effectiveness of anti-trust policy, investment and financial
freedom, ease of starting a new business, regulatory burden
and tax inconsistency (31).

References
1. Financial Times. FT 500 2015. [Online] 19 June 2015.
https://www.ft.com/content/a352a706-16a0-11e5-b07f-
00144feabdc0.
2. —. FT 500 2011. [Online] 26 June 2011. https://www.ft.
com/content/bd675ba2-98d5-11e0-bd66-00144feab49a.
3. Bloomberg. Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels .
[Online] 6 April 2016. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-
fuels.
4. MarketWatch. [Online] 7 April 2016. http://www.
marketwatch.com/story/tesla-picks-up-325000-
reservations-for-model-3-2016-04-07.
5. IEA. World Energy Investment 2016 - Fact sheet. [Online]
https://www.iea.org/media/publications/wei/
WEI2016FactSheet.pdf.
6. International Energy Agency. World Energy Statistics
and Balances online data service 2016 edition. [Online] July
2016. http://www.iea.org/statistics/relateddatabases/
worldenergystatisticsandbalances .
7. Financial Times. Renewables overtake coal as world’s
largest source of power capacity. [Online] 25 October 2016.
https://www.ft.com/content/09a1f984-9a1d-11e6-8f9b-
70e3cabccfae.
8. BP. Energy access database. World Energy Outlook.
[Online] 2015. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/
energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/.
9. Frankfurt School of Finance & Management. Global
Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016. [Online] http://
fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/
globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2016lowres_0.pdf.
10. 350.org. Global CO2
concentrations just passed 400
parts per million. [Online] March 2016. http://400.350.org/.
11. International Energy Agency. World needs $48 trillion in
investment to meet its energy needs to 2035. [Online] June
2014. http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2014/june/
world-needs-48-trillion-in-investment-to-meet-its-energy-
needs-to-2035.html.
12. International Monetary Fund. Frequently Asked
Questions. World Economic Outlook (WEO). [Online] 4
October 2017. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/faq.
htm#q4b.
13. Fiedler, Malte. The making of the EU internal energy
market. [Online] November 2015. http://www.rosalux.eu/
fileadmin/user_upload/making-of-eu-internal-energy-
market-2015.pdf.
14. Europa. Energy Strategy. [Online] 2016. https://ec.
europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy.
15. World Nuclear News. Reactor restarts pivotal to Japan’s
energy policy, says IEA. [Online] 22 September 2016. http://
www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Reactor-restarts-pivotal-
to-Japans-energy-policy-says-IEA-2209164.html.
16. Energy Post. Russian energy sector will cease to be
engine of growth. [Online] 3 July 2014. http://energypost.eu/
russian-energy-sector-will-cease-engine-growth/.
17. Worldwatch Institute. Jamaica Sustainable Energy
Roadmap. [Online] October 2013. http://www.worldwatch.
org/system/files/Jamaica-Sustainable-Energy-
Roadmap-112013.pdf.
18. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in France.
[Online] October 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/
information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx.
19. Secretaria de Energia. Mexico’s New Energy Industry:
Investing in the Transformation. [Online] https://www.ief.org/_
resources/files/events/mexico-energy-day---energy-reform-
in-mexico/mexican-president-visit-ief-17-jan-2016.pdf.
20. International Energy Agency. Energy Policies of IEA
Countries. France 2009 Review. [Online] 2010. https://www.
iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/france2009.
pdf.
21. Ministry of Energy and Mining. Jamaica’s National
Energy Policy 2009-2030. [Online] http://mstem.gov.jm/sites/
default/files/National%20Energy%20Policy.pdf.
22. International Energy Agency. Energy Policies of IEA
Countries. Sweden 2013 Review. [Online] 2014. https://www.
iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/
Sweden2013_free.pdf.
23. JAMPRO. Trade & Investment Jamaica. Opportunities.
[Online] http://www.jamaicatradeandinvest.org/investment/
sectors/energy/opportunities.
24. Embassy of France in London. French renewable
energy production up over 23% in 2015. [Online] 10 February
2016. http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Renewable-energy-
production-in-France-rose-23-in-2015.

25. Generating Renewable Energy Business Enterprise.
Green electricity certificates in Norway. [Online] 9 August
2016. https://greberenewableenergyblog.wordpress.
com/2016/08/09/green-electricity-certificates-in-norway/.
26. Wood Mackenzie. Global upstream investment slashed
by US$1 trillion. [Online] 15 June 2016. https://www.
woodmac.com/analysis/global-upstream-investment-
slashed-by-US1-trillion.
27. The World Bank. Energy imports, net (% of energy use).
[Online] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.IMP.CONS.
ZS.
28. Investing.com. Brent Oil Futures. [Online] http://www.
investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-historical-data.
29. YCharts. [Online] https://ycharts.com/.
30. International Partnership on Mitigation and MRV.
Transforming the Energy Sector in Uruguay. [Online] 2015.
https://mitigationpartnership.net/gpa/transforming-energy-
sector-uruguay.
31. World Bank. The Worldwide Governance Indicators
(WGI) project. [Online] 2016. http://info.worldbank.org/
governance/wgi/index.aspx#home.
32. BP. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. [Online] June
2012. http://www.laohamutuk.org/DVD/docs/
BPWER2012report.pdf.

91–93 route de la Capite
CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212
Fax: +41 (0) 22 786 2744
contact@weforum.org
www.weforum.org
The World Economic Forum,
committed to improving the
state of the world, is the
International Organization for
Public-Private Cooperation.
The Forum engages the
foremost political, business and
other leaders of society to shape
global, regional and industry
agendas.

WEF Energy architecture_performance_index_2017

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a WEF Energy architecture_performance_index_2017

Similar a WEF Energy architecture_performance_index_2017 (20)

Más de Willy Marroquin (WillyDevNET)

Más de Willy Marroquin (WillyDevNET) (20)

Último

Último (20)

WEF Energy architecture_performance_index_2017